Just from the title I think... Someone may have their views on something and they may write for a popular form, but that doesn't mean that they will be expressing or supporting their opinions through their medium.

If someone were gay and they made a comic, would the comic have to be gay? Would they have to only have gay characters in their story? No, of course not; that would just be stupid.
They can write whatever story they dang well want to and there is no law that requires their work to try to convey the plight of the homosexual, or that it can't be appreciated by those who are not gay, or that it has to support some sort of gay agenda.

Likewise, if someone takes a stance for an anti-gay agenda, since when does that absolutely positively HAVE TO mean that ANYTHING they write is trying to undermine homosexuality somehow?
News flash: There are thousands of writers in the world who take stances for views that are considered "anti-gay" and these views are NEVER expressed in their work.

In all honesty, the whole fact that this headline and article would even be used suggests to me a very subtle -but also cruel- agenda to slander any who do not actively support homosexual causes. It straight away instigates feelings of "are you with us or against us" but with that also adds a light to portray the gay crowd as the underdog because this big name is being used to assault them. This is all done on a nearly sub-conscious level, but these are the exact kinds of emotions that story invokes. The first image that comes to a person's mind is that they are going to make Superman himself fighting against the gay community, and that's not what's going to happen. DC would never allow it; they have too much to lose from such an incident.
No, all that title REALLY does is subtly move us to think that this man shouldn't be allowed to make a comic because of his views. Or to re-iterate, that he should not be allowed to have a job because of his beliefs.
And that, my friends, is wrong and oppressive._________________My webcomic: Mischief in Maytia
http://maytiacomic.com/

The youtube link doesn't work (and I'm not big on watching youtube for news, I would rather read) and there is not a news article linked so it's hard to comment- is the guy really an "anti-gay activist" (that alone is subjective and needs a ton of definition)? Is he at comic conventions making anti-gay marriage pronouncements and handing out literature? If so that in my opinion rises to the level of "news" and I have no problem with people getting pissed and boycotting Superman. I don't know if the article-writer/youtuber is implying the guy will be covertly, or even openly, inserting anti-gay material into the stories...surely not.

No, all that title REALLY does is subtly move us to think that this man shouldn't be allowed to make a comic because of his views. Or to re-iterate, that he should not be allowed to have a job because of his beliefs.

I think there are a lot of articles and op-eds like this but I don't know if this is one of them. Again I don't know how outspoken the Superman writer is about it, but if he's really on a soapbox banging away, yes, that's news and an accurate title for the news would be: Anti-Gay Activist to Write Superman Comic.

For me, it's a question of "Should this man be unemployed because I disagree with his political beliefs?"

Exactly!

Also, I am extremely displeased at the notion that one would throw out the term "anti-gay."

Let's be clear about something here. The only person who could be classified as being "anti-gay" would be someone who is willfully engaging in measures to exterminate homosexuality. News flash: there are very few people in the US who who want to round up gays into concentration camps. (I can't speak for other nations as I do not know their culture.)
Yet I can easily see people throwing an "anti-gay" label on someone for being against same-sex marriage. These are not the same thing. People who oppose same-sex marriage do so because they view marriage as sacred, and find it offensive that people would want to redefine a religious institution to fulfill what is essentially a self-serving motivation.
There is so much slander and hateful propaganda out there trying to make it look like people who are against same-sex marriage are doing so purely out of a hatred (or at least a dislike) of homosexuals. That's not the case, and I want to make a public statement here that that is not what it's about.
Furthermore, marriage itself is not about expressing love between two people, it is about establishing a family. The notion that marriage is an expression of love (which is a pillar in the argument of same-sex marriage) is one that also accelerates rampant divorce rates and tears families apart.

I have seen nothing from Card which suggests that he is purporting "unmitigated hatred" of homosexuals.
Let's check some facts here:
-He views homosexuality as being a deviant behavior.
THAT IS NOT HATRED, THAT IS A BELIEF ON AN ISSUE OF BEHAVIOR THAT DOES NOT HAVE A CLEAR SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION.
Someone can EASILY view homosexuality as being an errant behavior without having hatred toward homosexuals, because those two views are not connected. A person can care for another person greatly and still view certain aspects of their behavior to be wrong.
If you have a child, and your child does something bad, let's say they eat a whole box of cookies before dinner, do you somehow stop loving your child? Do you now fill yourself with nothing but "unmitigated hatred" toward your child because they did something wrong? Of course not. You still love your child more than anything, but you will take measures to keep your child from engaging in behavior that you know will hurt that child.
Likewise with such a view of homosexuality. Viewing it as a deviant behavior does NOT mean having hatred toward homosexuals. It means he views them as engaging in behavior that he feels will hurt them and/or society.

Now I am not saying I endorse this view of homosexuality, in fact I will state that I would not call it that. But it IS a valid opinion. Until someone can scientifically prove what causes a person to have homosexual desires, the only explanation anyone can give is one determined from observations of their own experiences and feelings. And the fact remains that whether or not someone can "choose" to be gay, all people still choose what they do with their sexual desires.

I'm saying all of this because this video and a few people here are throwing out terms of hatred that are based on gross misrepresentations of things Card has said. He has NEVER said anything along the lines that "all gays should die" nor has he said that gay people should be denied rights or punished except on matters where such actions are not one-sided issues, but rather that have valid debatable points on both sides.
And above all else, everything he has stated has come out of a belief that a homosexual can turn away from his homosexual behavior.
This is not hatred. You may argue that he is misguided or misinformed, but that is not hatred.

You want to know an example of hatred? Take a look at the video that sparked this whole debate. There is nothing ANYWHERE that has suggested that Card would try to turn Superman comic into an "anti-gay" rant. The whole purpose of that video is to try to demean a man over actions he has not taken, and which we have an overwhelming amount of history to suggest that he would not take. This video is running an agenda to get people to think that Card does not deserve have a job by slandering him with misrepresentation._________________My webcomic: Mischief in Maytia
http://maytiacomic.com/

I'd argue there's a difference between simply saying 'Sack this guy', and saying 'I'm not going to actively give this guy my money'.

A valid and rational point.
But when you make a news video like this one you cross the line from "personal beliefs and boycotts" to "public collaboration." In fact, this video goes even farther than that; it really is a slander agenda. They even try to demean him for having said "black." (Duh, geniuses, "African-American" is an extremely egotistical term. What do you call a black man who lives in Europe?)
They really do not in any present this matter as one of personal choice. They don't give any impression that this is just their individual opinion, let alone give room for the individual audience member to make their choice. They are trying to get people to feel bad for supporting him.

So, yes I agree that there is a difference between saying "sack this guy" and saying "I'm not going to actively give this guy my money," And I would say that they have crossed that line and are saying "sack this guy."_________________My webcomic: Mischief in Maytia
http://maytiacomic.com/

That's what Justinfh's comic implies. Although "vocal" may be technically incorrect since we are talking comics. This thread certainly didn't start because someone wanted to see the man get a raise. There is no point in protesting DC Comics unless A. You expect them to fire Card, or B. You have an ulterior motive, like a PR stunt.

I can be totally in support of boycott without wanting him to be fired. My feeling if I disagree with your political views, especially if you're in the entertainment business, is screw you you're not going to get my dollar. But no I don't want the guy fired, that's excessive and encourages political correctness and "proper-thinking." Enough people boycotting the comic could lead him to getting fired but not necessarily, but it could lead to DC thinking twice next time a similar situation come up, or it could lead to policy change in hiring for the future, or something like that.

I can be totally in support of boycott without wanting him to be fired.

That's kind of like saying "I want to stab you but I don't want you to die."
Okay, perhaps that's a bit of an absurd analogy, but take a look at what else you said:

mcmasters wrote:

[Boycotting the comic] could lead to DC thinking twice next time a similar situation come up, or it could lead to policy change in hiring for the future, or something like that.

How is that really any different than him getting fired? So you'll let him keep his job this one time but he can't have a writing job in the future?

I support having boycotts as well, but you cannot escape the notion that when you are boycotting something you are stating that it should never be allowed. If you boycott a writer for having certain opinions then you are declaring that no one should be allowed to write if they have those opinions. There is no other way around this. (And truthfully, it really is stating that if you are a writer you can never declare that you have these opinions.)
There are writers who have opinions that are different than my own, but I would only boycott the works that are perpetuating the beliefs that I am against, not the author._________________My webcomic: Mischief in Maytia
http://maytiacomic.com/

I can be totally in support of boycott without wanting him to be fired.

That's kind of like saying "I want to stab you but I don't want you to die."
Okay, perhaps that's a bit of an absurd analogy, but take a look at what else you said:

mcmasters wrote:

[Boycotting the comic] could lead to DC thinking twice next time a similar situation come up, or it could lead to policy change in hiring for the future, or something like that.

How is that really any different than him getting fired? So you'll let him keep his job this one time but he can't have a writing job in the future?

I support having boycotts as well, but you cannot escape the notion that when you are boycotting something you are stating that it should never be allowed. If you boycott a writer for having certain opinions then you are declaring that no one should be allowed to write if they have those opinions. There is no other way around this. (And truthfully, it really is stating that if you are a writer you can never declare that you have these opinions.)

Yeah, I get what you are saying. I guess this is why I would make a shitty protester, I would be the one saying "it's cool that we made an effigy and all, but are we really going to burn it? Whoa!" Like with the ChickFilA thing, was the movement really "Hey, we want to CLOSE each and every store and ruin the lives of everyone at this business!"? Or was it, we're going to lean on you and maybe you'll redefine your anti-gay stance? Which is what I believe resulted (I can still get a sandwich, two pickles and one mayonnaise please!)

I'm just wary of the notion that there is this pro-gay tidal wave screaming for this guy's job. Is there? I watched the video (actually I stopped at 1:07 when the guy pulled the racism card, that told me all I needed to know about how objective the video was going to be) is there more than these two in outrage? I'm not plugged into the comic scene, I don't know. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt. Just like I don't like the stereotype of "anti-gay" people supposedly calling for gays to be led to the gas chamber, I don't like the stereotype of "pro-gays" being mindless politically correct headhunters. There's probably plenty of "pro-gays" sharing my opinion, which is the guy sounds like an asshole and I'm going to stop buying Superman, but I'm not calling for his firing.

I agree the video is over the top. I actually switched it off halfway through and had a poke round on google to find some other discussions on the subject.

Over the top is an understatement. Within four minutes they had Card depicted as a self-loathing racist closet homosexual. Thank god they didn't go five minutes, they would have me believe he was behind me right now raping my cat.

I'm just wary of the notion that there is this pro-gay tidal wave screaming for this guy's job. Is there?

I wouldn't say tidal wave, but there are some responses on this thread alone that suggest that there are a number of people offering their own boycott of Card. Enough to dissuade companies from hiring Card? I doubt. Enough to warrant honest discussion? I'd say so.

ttallan wrote:

I got bored with the DC superheroes a long time ago

mcmasters wrote:

Not that I read Superman. I grew up a Marvel snob.

This exactly why they hired Card to write for them.
I had never heard of any of this animosity toward Card before this thread appeared. I knew of his religious views and if I cared I could easily extrapolate what radicals hate him, but overall being an "anti-gay activist" is just not something Card is known as (and honestly, the title sounds to me on the same level as the claims that people interviewed after the Sandy Hook shooting were actors.)
No, the public really sees Orson Scott Card as one of the biggest -if not THE biggest- science-fiction writers alive today. Because that's what he is, even if a few people poisoned by resentment are trying to make him seem like his personal opinions are greater than his public works.

So DC, still struggling to get good numbers out of their comic sales, decided to hire the biggest name in science fiction they could.
Sounds like a good idea to me._________________My webcomic: Mischief in Maytia
http://maytiacomic.com/

I'm just wary of the notion that there is this pro-gay tidal wave screaming for this guy's job. Is there?

I wouldn't say tidal wave, but there are some responses on this thread alone that suggest that there are a number of people offering their own boycott of Card. Enough to dissuade companies from hiring Card? I doubt. Enough to warrant honest discussion? I'd say so.

Actually the responses on this thread alone suggest any disdain at all for Card is at best unwarranted and at worst pro-gay propaganda.

Which I embrace, I don't want to be part of a community of single-minded Borgs. I still think the guy deserves a kick in the nuts rather than a stabbing (to stick with the analogy) but again if I were a regular buyer of Superman (I'm not) I would give it a rest for a few months.